Is it Time to Change the Rule of Law in America?

[Montrovant]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

I didn’t see Kavanaugh convicted of anything......did you?

If he wasnt convicted of anything, then why are people calling him a rapist? one would almost think he had been convicted in a court of law

Someone can form a personal opinion, rightly or wrongly, regardless of criminal conviction.

For that matter, someone can have committed a crime regardless of criminal conviction, just as someone can not have committed a crime and yet be convicted of one.

The belief that Kavanaugh is a rapist may be hyper-partisan BS, but it certainly doesn't require him to have been convicted of anything. Personal opinion is not the same as legal standing.

 

[Soupnazi630]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****

And presumption of innocence is not just law.

It is a sound principle which all intelligent people apply outside of the court room as well.

 

[Soupnazi630]

A job interview is not a trial, you feckless ****

The simpletons don't know the difference.

Apparently, you don't have a clue. The job interview was in Sept.

Oh so October has just been a figment of the imagination

Retard

That wasn't the job interview. The job interview was in Sept.
The political game was in Oct. Where have you been? And why do you feel a need to insult? It doesn't advance your opinion at all.

I see trash, I point out its trash. You gonna be a snowflake about it?

You only lie about it which is what makes a person trash

 

[Soupnazi630]

Democrat Party's 2018 platform is based entirely on "Guilt by accusation".

Republicans are running on: Rape & sexual assault os OK if there are no witnesses.

Lying under oath is permissible if you are a Republican.

No they are not running with that.

Not did Kavanaugh lie under oath

 

[Marion Morrison]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

I say for a return to the board OP, this one is absolutely crappy.

PS: Hang violent rapists/murderers publicly within 3 weeks of their trial and many problems get solved.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

I say for a return to the board OP, this one is absolutely crappy.

PS: Hang violent rapists/murderers publicly within 3 weeks of their trial and many problems get solved.

I like to keep it pithy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

As long as it's WillHaftaWaite Rules, I agree.


and I am always innocent, by decree.


Oops


sorry, got carried away.

Presumption of innocence, for BOTH parties should be the Rule.

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

I say for a return to the board OP, this one is absolutely crappy.

PS: Hang violent rapists/murderers publicly within 3 weeks of their trial and many problems get solved.

I like to keep it pithy.

I like to keep it real.

 

[Lakhota]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

Duh, did you forget about Hillary "Lock Her Up" Clinton? NaziCon hypocrisy is amusing. Dangerous, but amusing.

 

[Aldo Raine]

This is part of what Liberals mean when they want to "transform America". Get rid of that old clunky Constitution, throw away that pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. That just gets in the way of "progress".

Your President has said the constitution is out dated. I am sure that had you upset!

 

[Meister]

As long as it's WillHaftaWaite Rules, I agree.


and I am always innocent, by decree.


Oops


sorry, got carried away.

Presumption of innocence, for BOTH parties should be the Rule.

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

I say for a return to the board OP, this one is absolutely crappy.

PS: Hang violent rapists/murderers publicly within 3 weeks of their trial and many problems get solved.

I like to keep it pithy.

I like to keep it real.

Most of the time I like to keep it real, too, Marion.
After this Oct. character assassination of Kav, it was anything but real.
Sooo, that's why I went with this OP. I wanted to see if the liberals would be on board with it.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

Duh, did you forget about Hillary "Lock Her Up" Clinton? NaziCon hypocrisy is amusing. Dangerous, but amusing.

Actually, I just wanted an impartial investigation, seems Obama, Holder, and Lynch didn't want one.

 

[Coyote]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The judges I've dealt with say no, they might shoot your ass, too. I went up in front of a judge, the guy in front of me got 58 years for arson. Oh Yeah! You're next, step up! I did.

 

[Meister]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

I could live with that, Coyote

 

[Coyote]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

I could live with that, Coyote

I don’t understand why we don’t. An allegation is enough to completely ruin a life. And even if found baseless, there will be those who say “...well...where there is smoke there is fire...”

 

[Coyote]

The judges I've dealt with say no, they might shoot your ass, too. I went up in front of a judge, the guy in front of me got 58 years for arson. Oh Yeah! You're next, step up! I did.

My ass?

 

[Marion Morrison]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

Violent sexual assaults should involve public hanging. I'm a problem solver.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The judges I've dealt with say no, they might shoot your ass, too. I went up in front of a judge, the guy in front of me got 58 years for arson. Oh Yeah! You're next, step up! I did.

My ass?

Maybe not your ass, they do carry pistols, though. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[depotoo]

It is a tenet of American society, of which you know nothing of.

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

I was under the impression it is the legislative branch, not the judicial, that is voting on this confirmation.

It's the concept, Montrovant. It's not limited to the judicial in concept.
Concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.

Certainly the concept of innocent until proven guilty can be applied outside of trials. I would never deny that. However, you made the thread title specifically about the rule of law, and there is no law I am aware of that requires representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty in confirmation voting.

More, you specifically mentioned the judicial system in the OP, and asked if it was time to change the judicial system, despite this confirmation being in the legislature.

As I just said in another post, I think your argument is a moral one, but you've set it up as as legal one. Unless there is some law that directs representatives to treat Supreme Court nominees as innocent until proven guilty, that does not apply in this instance.

Maybe we should specifically apply the concept to these confirmation hearings and make it a legal issue, but I don't believe it is for now.

To be clear, as far as the specific accusations against Kavanaugh are concerned, I personally tend to look at them through an innocent until proven guilty lens. I have not seen or heard enough evidence to decide the man is guilty.

Advice and Consent is a LEGAL PROCESS.... You lose!

Whether or not something is a legal process does not decide whether the presumption of innocence applies. Many legal processes have nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence. Unless you can show where the presumption of innocence applies to a confirmation vote, legally, it does not apply here.

A marriage is a legal process, but there is no presumption of innocence, because there is no innocence or guilt involved.

 

[pismoe]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

This is not the only such example of a total loss of innocent until guilty. There are many examples and they include the Republicans as well. “Lock her up”

But the ugliest are sexual assaults. Because sexual assaults ruin lives. And false accusations ruin lives.

I think we should do what other countries do...names are withheld until an investigation is complete. If enough evidence is found to merit charges then names can become public.

------------------------------------------- names of WHO . I think that widdle babee womens names are already with held in 'rape' cases aren't they ?? Women are already treated like SPECIAL little flowers if i am correct Coyote .